It is shit, and it is considered holy by the Church of Scientology.
As I touched upon, Ethics is one of three main parts of the subject of Scientology. The other two are Tech (training and counseling) and Admin (organizational policy).
After the last post on this subject, I did a bit more research and came across something that perplexed me. I cannot believe I read this while in the church without a blink.
Ethics comprises the subject of Justice. While Hubbard confused the two subjects in more places than I can count, he somewhere intended ethics to be a person thing. He equated it with reason, with personal discipline and being true to oneself, while justice is the action taken by a group toward a person that goes against the mores of a group.
A person’s transgressions against the group is classified into three categories:
- High crimes/Suppressive acts
There is an extensive list the three categories covered in the book, “Introduction to Scientology Ethics”. Wading through the list, we find a few interesting points:
- Waste of funds
- Disrupting a meeting
- Impeding justice
So far, so good. These are the minor transgressions committed by the unruly. How about the real, juicy stuff, the crimes? Hold onto your hat, because here’s where it gets weird.
- Failure or refusal to acknowledge, relay or execute a direct legal order from an International Board member or an assistant board member
- Refusal to uphold discipline
- Not using a computer once it is installed
- Failing to keep a computer clean and in repair
- Misfiling in a computer
- Seducing a minor
- Issuing any Scientology data under another name
- Committing a problem
Holy shit! “Seducing a minor” is on the same level of severity as “Not using a computer once it is installed”!
Note that not toeing the party line is a crime.
And what the hell is “Committing a problem”?
Keep that perplexity – here comes the worst of the worst of crimes:
High crimes/Suppressive acts
- Unauthorized use of the materials of Dianetics and Scientology
- It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology
- Seeking to resign or leave courses or sessions and refusing to return despite normal efforts
- Failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts
- Using Scientology policy but calling it something else or attributing it to some other source
- Withhold of vital information
- First degree murder, arson, disintegration of persons or belongings
Excuse me? Withholding vital information from the Church is as bad as first degree murder? And worse than seducing a minor? Please pass me the barf bag.
And right here is the basis for the disconnection policy – failure to disconnect from someone who have publicly departed Scientology makes you just as guilty of a high crime. On par with arson or disintegration of a person.
And the use of Scientology policy while calling it something else is as bad as slaughtering a random person with a chain saw.
And people dare to call this a cult? Go figure.
Oh, and I can hear the justification crew come running down the door telling me this is taken out of context. That I am being too literal, that Hubbard didn’t really mean it that way, or, or, or. I am sure, with enough mental gymnastics, you can make any mental peg fit a square personality. I know, because I was just as guilty of leveling out my cognitive dissonance by the use of mental tricks. I cringe.
I should ease the harshness by mentioning that there are indeed good stuff that Hubbard wrote on the subject of ethics. But this, ladies and gentlemen, is just plain sick.